By definition, post 1950 it must be the World Champion for that year and prewar the European Champion.

Not necessarily. For example, Minoia won the 1931 European Championship without winning a race and I'm not sure you could say Rosberg was the best driver of 1982 - to name but two glaring examples. These things are all subjective of course - and I'm sure some people may find fault with my opinions. But that's what they are - opinions. You could, for example, put in a strong argument for von Brauchitsch in 1937: when he finished, he was always in the first three. But he only won one race, whereas Caracciola won four. My selection of Seaman for 1938 might seem contentious, but it's my firm opinion he was the best and fastest driver on the grid that year, with Lang just behind. Caracciola was 1938 European Champion, but only thanks to luck, rain and the silly scoring system which eliminated Seaman's chances: overall he was out-driven by Seaman and/or Lang almost everywhere.

Pre-Great War there aren't enough races to consider. Even the early 1920s are pretty sparse and although Hans suggests Goux for 1921, Nazzaro for 1922 and Salamano for 1923, I'd go for 1924 as the first really valid year.

By definition, post 1950 it must be the World Champion for that year and prewar the European Champion.

I'm sure Duncan's just teasing you HF. He must be. I'll go for 1974 and Niki Lauda. Yes, he made mistakes, but he was extremely quick and, given a bit more luck and better Ferrari reliability, he would have converted all those poles and race leads into many more points than Emerson, Clay or Jody.

By definition, post 1950 it must be the World Champion for that year and prewar the European Champion.

Au contraire. It is clear from the statements of drivers themselves that the driver's contribution to the result is around 10%, the rest being the car's capability, usability and reliability plus the team's ability. So really the championship is a goal and the series becomes the stage where the performances can be judged in the context of who did what with what. The more informed one is about the context of each driver's performance the more authoritative your opinion. The judges with skin in the game, the owners intent on hiring the best available or promising talent that may ripen in their employ, make their choices and we observers should take note. Regarding the titular champion of a given year as "the best that year" is lazy reliance on statistics.

When considering the twenties and early thirties, should we perhaps include major races other than Grands Prix such as some Targa Florios and major sports car races - the Mille Miglia, Le Mans and some Spa 24 hrs.

In defence of my earlier post, surely the aim of having a World Championship or any championship is to establish who was 'top dog' that year. The points systems used have produced anomalous results on occasions but that is a fault of the system not of the concept.

Should we perhaps simply count wins? And maybe weight the result by the importance of the race? Or by whether the top teams were all there (Basically DSJ's "Who did he beat?)? Or its length - the US "One point per mile of race"?

Not necessarily. For example, Minoia won the 1931 European Championship without winning a race and I'm not sure you could say Rosberg was the best driver of 1982 - to name but two glaring examples. These things are all subjective of course - and I'm sure some people may find fault with my opinions. But that's what they are - opinions. You could, for example, put in a strong argument for von Brauchitsch in 1937: when he finished, he was always in the first three. But he only won one race, whereas Caracciola won four. My selection of Seaman for 1938 might seem contentious, but it's my firm opinion he was the best and fastest driver on the grid that year, with Lang just behind. Caracciola was 1938 European Champion, but only thanks to luck, rain and the silly scoring system which eliminated Seaman's chances: overall he was out-driven by Seaman and/or Lang almost everywhere.

Pre-Great War there aren't enough races to consider. Even the early 1920s are pretty sparse and although Hans suggests Goux for 1921, Nazzaro for 1922 and Salamano for 1923, I'd go for 1924 as the first really valid year.

You could, for example, put in a strong argument for von Brauchitsch in 1937: when he finished, he was always in the first three. But he only won one race, whereas Caracciola won four.

Excellent list, Richard. You could also, I think, put in a strong argument for Rosemeyer in 1937. Like Caracciola he won four races, and was to a great extent waging a single-handed battle against the Mercedes team in an inferior car.

It is clear from the statements of drivers themselves that the driver's contribution to the result is around 10%, the rest being the car's capability, usability and reliability plus the team's ability.

Proven of course in the 1981 Championship, won by Piquet whilst his team mate, Rebaque, was never quite in the same race...

A very nice list. But I think we can also do the best drivers before 1924. Georges Boillot for example was the best driver in his era - so the best in 1914?

Well, there was only one Grand Prix. Boillot had won it in 1912 and 1913. However the car to have in 1914 was a Mercedes - for which reason I would actually give it jointly to Lautenschlager for the Grand Prix and DePalma for his Vanderbilt and Elgin wins.

Excellent list, Richard. You could also, I think, put in a strong argument for Rosemeyer in 1937. Like Caracciola he won four races, and was to a great extent waging a single-handed battle against the Mercedes team in an inferior car.

Oh, indeed Tim. Had Bernd not been killed in January 1938 I believe that the 1938 season would have been one of the greatest ever, with Seaman and Lang leading the Mercedes attack against him: given his health concerns I'm not sure Rudi would have still had it in him to beat Rosemeyer. Thanks to help from the team and the minimal opposition he had a far easier task to win the EC. That's why I rated Seaman and Lang ahead of him. But with Rosemeyer Auto Union could very well have had the D-type properly sorted by the German GP at the latest (maybe even by the French?) and it could have been at least as good as the original W154.

Should we perhaps simply count wins? And maybe weight the result by the importance of the race? Or by whether the top teams were all there (Basically DSJ's "Who did he beat?)? Or its length - the US "One point per mile of race"?

The combination of all that is basically what I tried to achieve with my GPChart computer prgramme, many years ago, but not only wins, and not only GPs. I haven't worked on that lately, and never put in enough data to my liking (I'm a perfectionist ), but I still have some "old" results of that around, and I always quite liked them. Based on that, my selections would read like something like this, although there are quite a few close calls!

I disagree. In my opinion the best man won the championship....even including Villeneuve.

So do I, Keke performed wonders with his Williams, he thoroughly deserved his success, the best driver that year in an outclassed car. In any event, as a complete package I'd also rate him above Villeneuve, so there!

Won the European GP at Spa, beating his team-mate Campari by 20 minutes in equal machinery. Was leading the French GP by some margin at the time of his fatal crash and - but for that - would surely have won the Italian GP as well: Brilli-Peri was good, but I doubt he'd have beaten Ascari in a P2.

Those were the only three races which really counted that year. You could also argue that he was marginally ahead of Campari in 1924, but the sparsity of top-class races in either year is a limiting factor. In each year, it has to be an Alfa Romeo driver, because the P2 was by far the best car.

The combination of all that is basically what I tried to achieve with my GPChart computer prgramme, many years ago, but not only wins, and not only GPs. I haven't worked on that lately, and never put in enough data to my liking (I'm a perfectionist ), but I still have some "old" results of that around, and I always quite liked them. Based on that, my selections would read like something like this, although there are quite a few close calls!

1973 Jackie Stewart

Michael, how did you rate qualifying in your calculations?

Jackie and Ronnie both won four races but Ronnie was faster than Jackie in 12 out of 15 races!

Jackie and Ronnie both won four races but Ronnie was faster than Jackie in 12 out of 15 races!

Christer

We're back to the 'complete package' thing again. For all Ronnie's undoubted speed I'd rate Jackie about a mile above him overall, for the same reason I've always rated Prost as better than Senna, though Ayrton usually had the edge in qualifying, same as with Ronnie and Jackie.

Perhaps the "best" driver is the one that all the other drivers are watching, and I'd like to suggest they come is eras, rather than years. So post-WW2, once things settle down you have Ascari, Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart, Fittipaldi, Prost, Senna, Schumacher and Alonso. I suspect Vettel will add to that list in time.

Then there are bright stars whose magic never quite translates into permanent greatness, and I'd offer Collins, Rindt, Peterson, Villeneuve and Hamilton in that category, though I'm sure I've missed a few - Ickx, maybe.

Not at all, unless the race itself is cancelled - then, the qualifying results stand as race results, race distance one lap (or four, as in the case of Indy, etc.). Non-starters are also ranked by qualifying performance, behind those who start (or, more precisely, complete at least one full lap). So, in effect, qualifying results are of very little to no value at all, as in real life.

Perhaps the "best" driver is the one that all the other drivers are watching, and I'd like to suggest they come is eras, rather than years. So post-WW2, once things settle down you have Ascari, Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart, Fittipaldi, Prost, Senna, Schumacher and Alonso. I suspect Vettel will add to that list in time.

Very good, except that I'd personally exchange Lauda for Fittipaldi. That's the way I see it, anyway.

Sometimes though, even the top drivers have races and occasionally series of races or whole seasons that are right stinkers. 1999 and 2008 would be examples of this IMO where Hakkinen, Massa and Hamilton might have taken the titles to the final round, but had particularly error strewn seasons and Irvine, who was a decent driver, but just not quick enough really and that are a 3rd driver usually from a smaller team impresses most during the year in the case of Frentzen and Kubica, so I agree with the argument so to speak that Hakkinen/Schumacher were the top drivers during 1999, but if the question was whose performances impressed me most during that year it would be Frentzen and Ralf.

During which periods the German was using probably the best of the front running cars, in contrast to the Spaniard using probably the worst...?

So how does one truly define 'best driver'?

DCN

I think he only had the best car in 2001, 2002 and 2004, and clearly not the best until 2000.

Good question - I think it would be something like the added value to the overall performance of the car/driver combination, including everything like motivating the team and of course the driving itself.

My understanding is that although the Delage had a low C of G its handling was not that good. The engine was very powerful but was also heavy and very long, and was installed in the chassis in such a way that it contributed nothing to chassis stiffness. This led to the chassis being extremely flexible compared to most of its opposition. This flexibility caused one of the car’s most obvious problems – flapping of the front wheels during braking.

The Talbot also head a low frontal area, achieved in the same manner as the Delage: running the props haft through the space previously occupied by the riding mechanic. I don't know how much power the Talbot had but it looks as though it could have been competitive with the Delage if it had been reliable and if the factory had had enough money to continue racing.

The Delage was unquestionably one of the technical highlights of Grand Prix history and was still competitive a decade later but we must admit that the opposition was not strong. If Delage, Fiat, Talbot and Bugatti had all raced a full season it could have been one of the greatest ever.

Cimarosti's GP History gives 140bhp for the Talbot (as well as 170 for the Delage). The comparative Fiat 806 figure is 187

Nickols and Karslake say 145 for the Talbot in "Motoring Entente" and DCN has the Delage at 177 in "Motor Racing Mavericks", which concurs with 187 for the Fiat and quotes the Fiat as about 15mph faster than the Delage - although the Fiat figure is at peak revs of 8500 and it seems likely they'd have had to limit it to 8000 for a full length GP. No speed for the Talbot, but it and the Delage were two hundredweight heavier than the Fiat.

Pomeroy, in The GR and Prix Car Vol2, reproduces an actual power curve for the Talbot which shows 144 bhp on alcohol fuel. He says that there was little to choose between it and the Delage in circuit performance. We should, however remember that the two cars only competed against each other on two occasions and the Talbots didn't last long in both cases. Results don't lie ... often.

Perhaps someone who has the 1973 Autocourse can see how their fastest laps compared.

Christer

Don't know about individual records, but Ronnie had 9 poles to Jackie's 3, Peterson had 2 fastest laps to Jackie's 1, Jackie had 5 wins to Ronnie's 4. Emerson Fittipaldi had most FLs, with 5, 1 pole and 3 wins. All of which goes to prove the square root of b*gg*r all.

Perhaps someone who has the 1973 Autocourse can see how their fastest laps compared.

Christer

Don't know about individual records, but Ronnie had 9 poles to Jackie's 3, Peterson had 2 fastest laps to Jackie's 1, Jackie had 5 wins to Ronnie's 4. Emerson Fittipaldi had most FLs, with 5, 1 pole and 3 wins. All of which goes to prove the square root of b*gg*r all.